Questions for the non-full preterist

[Mellontes]

I want to ask you one question - is the truth important enough for you to look at it from an angle otherwise uncomfortable for you? It was for me.


Allyn,
Preterism does'nt cause me any discomfort. Jesus is Lord and he reigns and that's what really matters. As far as being in the majority goes, if you're with God you're with the only opinion that matters.
I only wish that there would'nt be unpleasentness between believers with different viewpoints particularly since Paul said we all are looking through a dark glass for now.

Just a slight comment...and the reason I mention this is because many believe that the Christians in 2010 are the ones being written to by the apostles. This is incorrect. All Scripture can have application to us, but it was surely not written TO us. It was written to whom it was written (usually stated in the first few verses of each epistle). I stress again that we have gotten application mixed up with original interpretation.

Now, regarding that "dark glass" from 1 Corinthians 13:12...

1 Corinthians 13:12 - For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

The key word in that text is the word "now." When was this epistle written? Was it pre-parousia or post parousia? Regardless of whether one believes the parousia occurred at around 70 AD, one must believe that Paul is speaking PRIOR to the parousia. After the historical parousia event, all the uncertainty of the things Paul was discussing would be lifted. Clarity would be restored. As post-parousia full-preterist Christians, we don't see through that dark glass any more. The kingdom of God is fully and completely here right now. And since God is a Spirit, it seems quite unlikely that the reference "face to face" is expressing literal, physical terminology. I am not suggesting that you believe in that manner.

The same kind of thinking can be applied to "this present age" and "the age to come." We must understand the timing of when these things were being said. Present-day 2010 Christianity is not the audience.

The same goes for the heresy of Hymanaeus and Philetus of 2 Timothy 2:17-18 who said the resurrection was past. Again, when did they say this? Was it pre-parousia or post-parousia? We know that it was pre-parousia, even by futurist's standards. However, the resurrection was still future to them at the time of the writing. They jumped the gun by a few years. Paul never criticized them for the nature of the resurrection. And if the nature of the resurrection is according to present traditions (a physical and bodily out of the grave type), then how could they have possibly succeeded in overthrowing anyone's faith? All they had to do was look in the cemeterys and also to see if the planet was suffering adversely. No one could possibly be fooled into thinking that this KIND of resurrection was past. But one thing for sure, it destroys the dispensational view of the physical rapture. If the resurrection was already past, then Paul should have been raptured away at least seven years prior. But he wasn't was he?

[Allyn]

allyn wrote:

TK, I can understand a feeling of resistence since I experienced that but for what reason would it affect you so adversely?

It would be comparable to if my parents came out and told me I was adopted.

It would affect me adversely because if the great majority of Christians are dead wrong about something so important and so huge, then it would really affect my ability to believe in anything. What else might we have missed?

I don't mean to sound sound overly stubborn or irreverent, but the only way I could ever believe that Jesus already came back, that the resurrection already occurred, and that the rapture already occurred, is that if Jesus Himself appeared to me to tell me so Himself(I don't think an angel would be enough). It would still be very hard news to take, however and I would tell Him so- in a nice way, of course.

I also don't believe that God would allow the Church to continue on in this huge deception (assuming full preterism is true). It just wouldn't seem right.

TK

Hi TK,
I'm sure you are not alone. But you do realize that over the centuries essentially the same kind of shocks took place a few times. The Church has never been settled on what the Bible has been teaching. Dispensationalism is reletively new - Christian zionism is new, Calvinism is new and yet look at the following each have and each declare eternal conception.

One of the major issues I see as holding people back from accepting all things fulfilled is the understanding of the resurrection of the dead. Why is it that the majority of the church thinks that it involves them and not for the people it was promised to and what is specifically taught from Scripture as being for the Old Covenant people? If you cleared this up in your mind it would make it easier to accept that fulfilled eschatology is realy the original teaching and that the church departed from that truth. God and His power to save has never been relinguished but as long as people have free will to think people will make mistakes in understanding.If what you say that God would not allow this huge deception is true then we have a problem already with the thousands of denominations and the many many different translations of the inspired word of God.

TK, can I get a reply from you on this question? In John 11:26 Jesus tells Martha
26 And whoever lives and believes in Me shall never die. Do you believe this?”

How would you explain this concept?

Thanks in advance

[steve7150]

The same kind of thinking can be applied to "this present age" and "the age to come."





As i've mentioned before usually this age is prefaced with evil when it is being referenced to like "this present evil age" and is contrasted with "the age to come."
That means the age to come has no more evil yet even the Preterist acknowledges we still have much evil.

[Mellontes]

The same kind of thinking can be applied to "this present age" and "the age to come."

As i've mentioned before usually this age is prefaced with evil when it is being referenced to like "this present evil age" and is contrasted with "the age to come."
That means the age to come has no more evil yet even the Preterist acknowledges we still have much evil.

Hi Steve7150. May I call you Steve? May I have the Scriptures you are using to substantiate the above statement about evil? It is very hard to discuss these things without having a Scriptural frame of reference. I hope you understand...thank you.

[StephenPatrick]

Allyn wrote:

If today you came to believe that Jesus came already a second time and it took place before the end of the 1st century AD then how would this new knowledge affect you , your family and your church?

As for me, I'd be wandering around aimlessly like a chicken with its head cut off. Alternatively, it would be a major sock in the gut that I am not sure I could handle.

TK

Good morning TK.

It's been quite awhile since I've posted anything here, but those last comments of yours rang a bell for me. I was a basket case for well over a year, and I honestly wouldn't wish that on anyone. If you knew my wife and could talk to her she would tell you how difficult it was living around me. I felt deceived, betrayed, confused, and had many questions for God.

The first time was introduced to any type of preterism, partial or full, was coming to this forum and reading the many threads on this subject. Right before that I listened to Steve's audio series on Israel, since I was having many difficulties with the current understanding of Israel and the Jews today. Steve cleared many of those problems up for me in a very uncomplicated way.

I think the day the bell went off or the light came on for me was studying the Gospel of John, when Jesus brought Lazarus back from the grave. In John 11:25-26 Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?

I believe that this is telling me that I already have life since I believe. That would mean I wouldn't need to be resurrected. If that is true, then the resurrection of the dead happened already and didn't apply to me, but to the OT saints who believed. And if that is the correct understanding of that, then "all" has been fulfilled.

Maybe this can be better illustrated with a true story from the book, "These Words Changed Everything." I posted this on another forum awhile ago, I'll just paste it here. It is about the bringing of the gospel to the Chamula Indians in Southern Mexico. They are decendents of the Maya Indians. Our good friends, Ken and Elaine Jacobs, missionaries with Wicliffe Bible Translators, moved to Mexico in 1959 and started their jobs with learning the language and putting it to words so they could translate the Old and New Testament for this people group, called "The Impossible People."

This story is from the end of the first chapter. The conversation only is taken from this book.
Please bear with me.

A young woman, Paxcu, one of the first believers within the Chamula tribe, had her house torched one night. While she escaped death (even though she was shot in the face and chest running out the front door of her hut) her 2 nieces, and her brother and sister didn't fare so well. They found the the charred remains of thirteen year old Tumina in the burned out house, and collected them in a pail for later burial. They discovered seven year old Abilena, ten year old Domingo, and four year old Angelina huddled together in a mud bathhouse just yards from the home. Domingo was dead, his head nearly severed from his body by a machete blow. Angelina was alive when police arrived but died en route to the hospital. Only seven year old Abelina had survived. A machete slash across her face knocked out some teeth and almost severed on arm, but the bone remained intact.

While recuperating from her wounds three weeks later, Paxcu had a dream. In her dream, Paxcu's sister and brother who were killed in the attack, Tumina and Domingo appeared at her bedside. Paxcu recounted the story.

"My brother put his hand on one shoulder and my sister put her hand on my other. They said, 'Paxcu don't cry'." In the dream, Paxcu challenged her younger sister, "But you burned up."
"No," replied Tumina, "I haven't burned."
Then turning to her brother, Paxcu said, "You died from a machete."
"No," countered Domingo, "I'm alive in heaven."
Paxcu paused, then asked, "Is our mother there?"
"No," they said sadly. "She's not here. She never heard the Word of God."
Paxcu shared her dream with Losha and told her sister that the children, including Losha's daughter Angelina, had not died but were alive and together in heaven. Losha was doubtful, especially since she had seen the children's remains. But the grieving mother had to admit Paxcu's dream confirmed what the new believers were learning as they studied the Good New Words. Believers don't die–they go to be with the Lord.

When I finished reading this first chapter I was floored. For me, I truly believe this is real life confirmation of the truthfulness of John 11:25-26. The brother and sister confirmed to their older sister, in a dream, that they did not die, but are alive in heaven. While their body perished, the real part that makes us who we are didn't. And that is the death that Jesus is talking about, spiritual death.
John 3:15-16 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. 
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Sorry for the length of this post.
I hope this helps you to see just how I have slowly come to understand this very difficult topic.

Blessings.
Steve

[TK]

Allyn and Stephen P:

In regard to the John passage ("And whoever lives and believes in Me shall never die. Do you believe this?"). I obviously do not believe this applies to physical death. martha died, as will every other Christian (unless the rapture comes first--- sorry had to throw that in). I agree that he is talking about spiritual death.

So I guess I dont really understand exactly what full preterists believe in regard to the "afterlife." Presumably you believe that when a christian dies, their spirit goes to heaven. I believe this too, but I believe that one day we will also have a glorified resurrection body. I must say, however, that Paidion almost had me convinced of his belief that when a Christian dies, there is no intermediate "disembodied" state as a spirit in heaven, but that the next conscious (and seemingly instantaneous) event will be the resurrection. I am still open to this idea. It doesn't bother me at all. If I am not conscious, why would I care?

You also presumably believe that nothing further is going to happen to the earth, judgment wise- i.e. the earth will just continue on for however long until is simply dies out a natural death. no new heaven, no new earth, and we Christians will be hear moseying along until the bitter end. hey- if we ever colonize other planets, there may never be a bitter end. what a concept!

By the way, do full preterists have any theories where "heaven" is? Just wondering.

TK

[Allyn]

TK,

We do indeed believe in the new heaven and new earth. Its just that we recognize it as what we believ is taught about it in relation to the New Covenant. This is one reason why we can understand how it could be possible that the Gates are left open and that outsiders doing what the world does is still going to go on. This is one reason why we understand how the law, being the old heaven and old earth can pass away but not Jesus' words. This is one reason why we understand that the terms of heaven and earth to the Children of Israel were totally related to the temple.

[TK]

Allyn-

By that are you saying that we are currently living on the "new earth"-- i.e. that this is all there is and all there will be?

TK

[Mellontes]

The new heaven and earth is covenant related, not planet related. It would be more akin to living WITHIN the new heaven and new earth. Those who believe the soteriological issues assoiated with the Christ have been welcomed into the new covenant relationship.

Let's not forget that even Isaiah, in his prophecy of the new heaven and new earth (Isaiah 65-17-25), mentions death, sinners, building of houses, planting of vineyards, and wolves and lambs feeding together (which I attribute much of the same kind of language to Isaiah 11:6-9 and its fulfillment in Romans 15:12). Surely this is not addressing the heavenly realm after physical death...and I am not suggesting that anyone is saying this. Many take this to be a literal, physical passage and should be fulfilled literally and physically. I think what Paul says in Romans 15:12 as to the fulfillment of the conditions described in Isaiah 11:6-9 represented by "that day" of Isaiah 11:10 give good indication that we are not taliking about literal, physical fulfillments...

As for the heavenly realm after our physical death, well, anyone's guess is as good as mine...

[TK]

Thanks Mellontes-

so in other words, in the FP view there will be no "supernatural" end to the physical earth, and ultimately, one day, assuming we dont colonize other planets, Christians will simply die out (physically) when the earth becomes uninhabitable. right?

TK